Philtranco v BLR

PHIL ILT TRANC RANCO O

SERVICE ICE

ENTER TERPRISES, petitioner,

vs.

it is the bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco and as such it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI, KAWANI, ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT, MANGGAGAWA AT KONPIDENSIYAL SA PHILTRANCO, respondents.

On &pril &pril 2, !#$$, !#$$, a resolu resolutio tion n was was rende rendered red dismis dismissin sing g the Petition of /ertification Election filed by %&S&'& %O.

FACTS:

Peti Petiti tion oner er Philt Philtra ranc nco o Serv Servic ice e Ente Enterp rpri rise ses, s, Inc. Inc. is a land land transpor transportatio tation n company company engaged engaged in the business business of carrying carrying passengers and freight. The company employees included field workers consisting of drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach stewa stewards rds and and mecha mechanic nics s and and offic office e emplo employee yees s like like clerks clerks,, cashiers, programmers, telephone operators, etc. On ebruary !", !#$$, the %apisanan ng mga %awani, &ssistant, &ssistant, 'anggagawa at %onpidensyal sa Philtranco (%&S&'& %O) filed a petition for certification election with the *epartment of +abor  and Emplo Employm yment ent,, alleg alleging ing among among others others that that it desir desires es to repre represen sentt all profes professio siona nal, l, techn technica ical, l, admin administ istrat rative ive,, and and conf confid iden enti tial al empl employ oyee ees s pers person onne nell of resp respon onde dent nt at its its establishments in +uon, -isayas and 'indanao for purposes of  collective bargaining. They claim that the employees which they seek to represent were always always ecluded ecluded from participating participating in the certifica certification tion election election among rank and file employees and are also ecluded from the bargaining unit covered by the /0& between the company and its rank and file employees. On ebruary 12, !#$$, the 3ational 'ines and &llied 4orkers 5nion (3&'&456'I) (3&'&456'I) filed a motion for intervention alleging that

%&S&'& %O appealed to the 0ureau of +abor 7elations (0+7) On September ", !#$$ the 0+7 reversed the resolution of the 'ed6&rbiter. 'ed6&rbiter. & motion for reconsideration was denied in an order  dated October !8, !#$$. ISSUE:

!. 4O3 the 0+79s decision of granting %&S&'& %O9s Petition for  /ertification Election was proper (3O) 1. 4O3 there eists substantial differences between the work performed by respondents and the rank and file employees (3O)

RATIO:

!. Sect Sectio ion n !! of 7ule 7ule II, II, 0ook 0ook - of the the Omni Omnibu bus s 7ule 7ules s implementing implementing the +abor /ode did away with eisting supervisors: unions classifying the members either as managerial managerial or rank and file employees employees depending depending on the work they perform. perform. If they discharge managerial functions, supervisors are prohibited from forming or ;oining any labor organiation. If they do not perform managerial work, they may ;oin the rank and file union and if none eists, they may form one such rank and file organiation. This rule was emphasied in the case of 0ulletin Publishing /orp. v. Sanche, It, therefore, follows that the members of the %&S&'& %O who are professi professional, onal, technical technical,, administr administrative ative and confident confidential ial

personnel of P